British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[BillyJoe]

I am looking beyond the appeal. If the appeal fails, then Simon has to prove that the BCA knew the treatments were bogus.

If he loses the appeal, his next step is to appeal to the EU on the judges ruling. He really cannot go to trial trying to prove something he did not believe to be correct at the time he wrote it, even if there is evidence now that he may have been.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Appeal to the world health organisation...?

 

[BillyJoe]

World Health Organisation??? what do you mean?

 

[Wudang]

You mean the EU? There is an argument that UK libel laws are potentially in breach of article 6 (equal representation before the law) and article 11 (freedom of expression) of European Human Rights. I am not a lawyer so can't comment on the strength of this argument.

 

[BillyJoe]

...yes, correct, the EU.

 

[shuttlt]

If he loses the appeal, his next step is to appeal to the WHO on the judges ruling. He really cannot go to trial trying to prove something he did not believe to be correct at the time he wrote it, even if there is evidence now that he may have been.

WHO aside, presumably he did believe that they knew that these treatments lacked scientific support. What seems to be being demonstrated is that chiropractic organizations in general are quite aware of this and are uncomfortable about defending these (non-lower back related) treatments in court.

My understanding was that if they believed that, despite the fact that the evidence for these treatments was not in their favour, these treatments worked, then they didn't believe they were 'bogus'. If the treatments are bogus, but the chiropractors don't/won't believe it then Simon Singh was still in error to say that they were happily promoting bogus treatments.

If the current official interpretation of his comments stand, he is sunk. Hopefully there is a book in it for him.

By the way, how come homeopaths get to claim they can treat all sorts of bogus stuff, by chiropractors get taken to the ASA if they do the same?

 

[Asolepius]

If he loses the appeal, his next step is to appeal to the EU on the judges ruling. He really cannot go to trial trying to prove something he did not believe to be correct at the time he wrote it, even if there is evidence now that he may have been.

I suppose you are right, but however the case proceeds, I can't see that these revelations do anything but seriously undermine the BCA's credibility. For example, what if a judge decides there is no case to answer, because he/she finds the BCA to be a vexatious litigant for bringing a case which subsequently turns out to be without foundation?

Forgive me,I am just indulging in thought experiments.

 

[tsig]

I suppose you are right, but however the case proceeds, I can't see that these revelations do anything but seriously undermine the BCA's credibility. For example, what if a judge decides there is no case to answer, because he/she finds the BCA to be a vexatious litigant for bringing a case which subsequently turns out to be without foundation?

Forgive me,I am just indulging in thought experiments.

It looks to me like the chiros and all woos are getting a lesson in double-edge swordsmanship and the fragility of glass houses.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

WHO aside, presumably he did believe that they knew that these treatments lacked scientific support. What seems to be being demonstrated is that chiropractic organizations in general are quite aware of this and are uncomfortable about defending these (non-lower back related) treatments in court.

My understanding was that if they believed that, despite the fact that the evidence for these treatments was not in their favour, these treatments worked, then they didn't believe they were 'bogus'. If the treatments are bogus, but the chiropractors don't/won't believe it then Simon Singh was still in error to say that they were happily promoting bogus treatments.

If the current official interpretation of his comments stand, he is sunk. Hopefully there is a book in it for him.

By the way, how come homeopaths get to claim they can treat all sorts of bogus stuff, by chiropractors get taken to the ASA if they do the same?

I think the crucial difference here is that the GCC is a real statutory public authority that has to take its own rules seriously...once they have been reminded of them...once they have been reminded of them very publicly. This gives real teeth to the attacks on chiroquackery.

Homs and their ilk have had loads of findings made against them by the ASA, MHRA, Veterinary Medicines Directorate. I've instituted a couple and others have done more. That only has the effect of one woo making some incremental change to some part of their website or other advertising. The fact that the MHRA and VMD have completely fallen asleep at the wheel in dealing with their broad claims has effectively given them carte blanche. In essence, the current rules for selling hom remedies enshrine, within the rules themselves, claims that are just as outrageous as the claims we have seen that the chiros can be attacked over.

 

[Mojo]

...yes, correct, the EU.

The ECHR.

 

[shuttlt]

So pretty much any homoeopaths website/literature/advertising is illegal if it claims to be able to cure any specific condition? All those claims to being able to cure swine flu included?

 

[BenBurch]

BTW, I dispute even the assertion that back pain is effectively treated by traditional chiropractic. What is the case is that back pain is usually a self-limiting condition and gets better in spite of the chiropractor rather than because of him. And pain is subject to the usual "placebo effect" because awareness of pain is to a degree subjective.

However, non-traditional chiropractic, especially the use of TENS machines can in fact dull pain for a period of time, but does not actually cure the underlying issues with the back.

I would be MUCH more inclined to believe that a non-manipulative approach to back pain such as posture correction would be effective, and some Chiropractors do in fact do a fair job of counseling on posture, ergonomics and safe lifting practice. But when they do this they are basically being overpaid sports trainers...

 

[ejk]

If he loses the appeal, his next step is to appeal to the EU on the judges ruling. He really cannot go to trial trying to prove something he did not believe to be correct at the time he wrote it, even if there is evidence now that he may have been.

Why not? The trial is not about what he believed, it's about whether what he *said*, as interpreted by the judge, was true. Even if it's not something he thought was true at the time he said it, if later evidence shows it is true, that evidence can be introduced and support a finding that the BCA was not libeled.

 

[BenBurch]

Why not? The trial is not about what he believed, it's about whether what he *said*, as interpreted by the judge, was true. Even if it's not something he thought was true at the time he said it, if later evidence shows it is true, that evidence can be introduced and support a finding that the BCA was not libeled.

Because the judge's ill-considered interpretation would require Singh to prove the state of mind of the practitioners he was discussing. Generally this is impossible barring some very public declaration by members of the Bogus Chiropractic Association that they indeed know that they are Quacks.

Sadly they are either quiet on the matter or are too stupid to realize that they are utter frauds.

 

[ejk]

Because the judge's ill-considered interpretation would require Singh to prove the state of mind of the practitioners he was discussing. Generally this is impossible barring some very public declaration by members of the Bogus Chiropractic Association that they indeed know that they are Quacks.

Sadly they are either quiet on the matter or are too stupid to realize that they are utter frauds.

Right, I understand that, but of course if (hypothetically) one were to find evidence that they knew their treatments were not effective (such as retraction of publications making those claims), wouldn't that at least be relevant evidence?

I was responding to the suggestion that Singh can't reasonably try to prove in his defense a fact that he did not actually assert or believe at the time he made the allegedly defamatory statement.

So, yes, the state of mind of the BCA has, unfortunately, been made a central factual issue. But I do not believe Singh's subjective believe is.

 

[BillyJoe]

Why not?

Because Simon Singh would lose credibility trying to prove something he did not believe to be true, just because some judge misinterpreted his words to mean that.

BTW, I'm glad we cleared up who he going to appeal to.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

BTW, I'm glad we cleared up who he going to appeal to.

He appeal to me and I only little bit gay.

 

[ejk]

Because Simon Singh would lose credibility trying to prove something he did not believe to be true, just because some judge misinterpreted his words to mean that.

Well there you go, that's the source of our misunderstanding/disagreement. I'm thinking about this like a lawyer -- what would be a winning argument in court? And here you are bringing in personal credibility and crazy stuff like that.

 

[Lothian]

Because the judge's ill-considered interpretation would require Singh to prove the state of mind of the practitioners he was discussing.

Is that the case. I don't have the original text to hand but I thought he said the BCA happily promoted bogus treatments. In that case he would have to prove the BCA knew they couldn't cure colic asthma etc, rather than every Chiro. That might be easier.

I don't know what the test is. If it is "a reasonable body should have known..." the BCA are facing an uphill struggle.

Obviously the "not a jot of evidence" is another issue.

 

[BillyJoe]

I don't have the original text to hand but I thought he said the BCA happily promoted bogus treatments. In that case he would have to prove the BCA knew they couldn't cure colic asthma etc, rather than every Chiro.

Your recollection is mosty correct but misses the "not a jot of evidence" bit, though you mention it below.
The following is the exact quote of the passage from Simon Singh's comment piece in the Guardian newspaper on which the BCA based their decision to sue:

The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though  there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

Simon Singh meant the word "bogus" to apply to the treatments, not the BCA. Justice Eady focussed on the highlighted words in his ruling on meaning.
He decided that:

Everyone knows what bogus treatments are. They are not merely treatments which have proved less effective than they were at first thought to be, or which have been shown by the subsequent acquisition of more detailed scientific knowledge to be ineffective. Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses, when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.

Mr. Justice Eady’s ruling, May 7, 2009
​